Posted on 02/04/2002 12:55:13 PM PST by Sir Gawain
Was Peter the "Rock"?
Question: Was Peter the "rock" on which Jesus will build His church?
Answer: Here is the passage that you are referring to:
Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
Matthew 16:14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."
Matthew 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
The Greek word for Peter is petros, meaning "a pebble." The Greek word for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock" such as bedrock. Jesus is the Rock, petra. Everyone who receives this revelation from the Father like Peter received itthat Jesus is the Son of God (Lord and Savior)becomes a part of His Church.
Christ used the word petra when He told the parable of the man building a house upon a rock to illustrate its size.
Matthew 7:24-25 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock (petra). And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock (petra)."
Jesus was talking about building upon bedrock, not a pebble.
The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus is the foundation upon which we build our lives:
1 Cor. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
The apostle Peter also informed up that every believer is a "stone" and that Jesus Christ is the "cornerstone" or foundation.
1 Peter 2:4-6 And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed."
Every believer is a stone in Christs Church. Peter was not the rock, but just one of many who are a part of this spiritual house of worship.
Don't think so.
Catholics don't pray to anyone except God through His son, Jesus Christ. But we ask Mary and the saints to pray for us because we believe their prayers are particularly effective. This doesn't mean that we don't believe our prayers are effective, because they are. It means that when something is really important ... like ending abortion ... we can use all the help we can get, and asking the saints in heaven to pray for unborn babies will help.
It seems that Catholics can say over and over and over against that we don't pray TO saints, that we ask saints to pray TO God FOR us, but some people don't want to listen. I can only pray TO God and ask the saints to pray TO God FOR you and our fellow brothers and sisters who still have a problem understand the Catholic Christian position on intercession.
God bless, and I will be praying for you.
Nothing prevented Jesus from using the masculine petros twice, as He likely might have done ( that or one of numerous other options) had He meant, contrary to the context, to be introducing some notion of building something not on Himself or the truths of His person, but on Peter.
The idea that the Roman Catholic church is a product of any sort of "succession" from the apostles is not one that a Bible believer would entertain seriously. No sect so hostile to central teachings of the Bible could trace its origins thus.
Future unity is unlikely, barring apostasy among professing Christians. Consider two "religious" people.
One person trusts in Jesus plus self-effort shown in a program of virtue and religion to save him. To Him "Savior" is one of Jesus' titles.
Another trusts in Jesus to save him, and he lives according to His Word for God's glory out of sheer gratitude by the grace of God. To Him "Savior" describes who Jesus IS and what He DOES. Not "co-savior," not "assistant." "Savior."
Between the two positions is an eternity of difference that all the good-will and affection in the world cannot paper over.
Oh, by the way re "Rocky." The word rocky is"petrodes" in Greek. Are we having fun yet with these translations of words?
Now I can say the magic words, to wit:
I think so!
And ... yes, it is a difficult task trying to decipher motives of the heart from another person's words.
Final note, the need to distance St. Peter from the Jesus comment is a concern for some protestants for obvious reasons.
My you are bright, Paulus!
So, you don't pray to the saints, you ask them huh?.
So, the next question would be...How do you ask them. Would it happen to be through prayer perhaps? Crystal ball? Miss Cleo? That guy on TV who talks to dead people? Tarrot cards? Ouigi board?
Let's go one step further...
Essentially, you "talk" to the dead people, though some other means than prayer...but in order to ask them, you certainly must be in communication with these dead people.
Do you think that communicating with dead in any fashion people is OK (regardless of the Biblical admonition not to do so)?
Lastly, what exactly, in your view is prayer?
Wouldn't it casually be defined as communicating/talking to...?
In summary, regardless or your creative verb usage, it sounds like you do pray to dead people after all.
Let me put this in the form of a very simple analogy...
God is the Judge of all men
Jesus, is the Son of the Judge, and is the ready advocate (lawyer), Who is ready and willing to provide any man an aquittal through His connections to His Father the Judge. What a better attorney could any man ask for than the Son of the Judge?
Before walking into court, each man already knows that he will be found guilty and punished. But the Judge's Son has already offered a free gift of forgiveness if the defendant will allow the Judge's Son to defend him...to be his propitiation.
Given such a direct line to aquittal available to every defendant...
why would anyone choose to through another guilty convict, to serve as a laison, to have a talk with the Judge's Son so the Judges Son could talk with the Judge, when the defendant could go directly to the Judge's Son for himself?
Would seem rather silly don't you think?
The tactic of questioning the reliability and integrity of God's Word is a very old tactic, yet is still being used to this very day by the first liar's current representatives
...nothing new under the sun.
On this particular discussion point I have indeed changed my mind. On the NeverEnding Threads I decided (tho I be a proddie) that Peter was indeed the rock. What that means does not necessarily lead down the RCC road. FWIW
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.